See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286384751

Shear Deformations of Slender Reinforced

Concrete Walls under Seismic Loading

Article in Aci Structural Journal March 2011

CITATIONS READS

36 239

3 authors, including:

Katrin Beyer
cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne
91 PUBLICATIONS 628 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Katrin Beyer on 07 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 108-S17

Shear Deformations of Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls

under Seismic Loading
by Katrin Beyer, Alessandro Dazio, and M. J. Nigel Priestley

Experimental results gained from quasi-static cyclic tests on 34 deformations will remain constant once the nominal yield
slender structural reinforced concrete walls available in the force has been reached. Although experimental evidence that
literature are used to examine the shear deformations for proved this conclusion wrong has been available for many
displacement demands in the inelastic range. Based on these decades, it has not often been considered when modeling
results, the distribution of shear strains within the walls and the slender RC walls. Hence, regarding the acknowledgement of
variation of shear deformations with top displacements is
discussed. It is shown that for shear walls whose shear-transfer
the magnitude of the shear deformations, a vicious circle was
mechanism is not significantly deteriorating, the ratio of shear-to- created, wherein shear deformations in structural analyses
flexural deformations remains approximately constant over the are underestimated due to excessively large shear stiffness
entire range of imposed displacement ductilities, whereas for walls values. Their contribution to the total deformations are therefore
whose shear-transfer mechanism is significantly degrading, the perceived as negligible and their effect on the structural
ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations increases. For the former, a performance is not considered.
simple model is proposed that allows the estimation of the ratio of The objective of this paper is to present experimental data
shear-to-flexural deformations. for the shear deformations of slender cantilever walls by
examining the data of 34 test units available in the literature
Keywords: cyclic tests; instrumentation; reinforced concrete; shear with an aspect ratio larger than 2 that were subjected to
deformations; structural walls. quasi-static cyclic loading and to identify parameters that
affect the shear deformations. Of particular interest is the
INTRODUCTION ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations when the wall is
Slender reinforced concrete (RC) walls, which are loaded in the inelastic range to conclude whether shear
designed to have a larger shear resistance than flexural deformations are important to consider in structural analysis.
resistance, and whose behavior is therefore controlled by Based on these results, shear displacements can be estimated
flexure rather than shear, behave in a ductile flexural mode or the effective stiffnesses of beam elements can be determined.
when loaded beyond the elastic limit. The inelastic seismic
behavior of such walls can be analyzed using advanced RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
models that account for the biaxial in-plane stress state in the The purpose of this paper is: 1) to examine the shear
RC elements, such as the modified compression field theory deformations in rectangular and nonrectangular RC walls;
by Vecchio and Collins,1 on which the Response-20002 and and 2) to provide estimates of the expected shear deformations
VecTor23 programs are based. Other advanced modeling in walls controlled by flexure that can be used for computing
approaches that have been developed to analyze the inelastic shear deformations for plastic-hinge analysis or for deriving
response of RC members are based on macroelements, such equivalent elastic shear stiffnesses representative of a certain
as the PERFORM4 program, in which different layers of the displacement ductility level for use in other types of analyses,
macroelements are assigned a specific load-carrying such as the analysis of models with inelastic beam elements.
mechanism, such as axial forces and bending moments or
shear forces. In engineering practice, however, slender walls DETERMINING SHEAR AND FLEXURAL
are still often modeled with beam elements. The formulation DEFORMATIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL
of the most common types of nonlinear beam elements (that MEASUREMENTS
is, displacement-based5 or force-based inelastic beam The total top displacement of a cantilever RC wall can be
elements6) focuses on modeling the flexural rather than the interpreted as the sum of three displacement components
shear response of the member. As a result, relative elaborate that is, 1) the flexural displacement f, which is the sum of
techniques are available for modeling the inelastic flexural the flexural deformations f of the wall panel and the
response, such as models with inelastic beam elements with displacement caused by the fixed-end rotation of the wall
fiber sections. Compared to the options that are available to associated with the strain penetration of the longitudinal
engineers when modeling the flexural response of RC reinforcing bars into the foundation; 2) the shear deformations
members, the variety of approaches for modeling the shear s of the wall; and 3) the sliding displacement sl along the
response is relatively sparse. In most structural engineering joint between the wall and foundation. For typical wall
programs, the shear stiffness of beam elements that develop designs, the sliding displacements are relatively small and
a flexural mechanism is assigned a constant value that
cannot be updated during the loading process. This modeling ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 2, March-April 2011.
MS No. S-2008-281.R3 received January 19, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
approach has been supported by the misconception that publication policies. Copyright 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
because the shear reinforcement is not supposed to yield and including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the January-
the compression strut is not supposed to crushthe shear February 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2011.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 167

 larger base lengths for regions that remain largely elastic
ACI member Katrin Beyer is an Assistant Professor of Earthquake Engineering at
the Ecole Polytechnqiue Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Lausanne, Switzerland. She where the curvature gradient is smaller. For good estimates
received her PhD from the Rose School, Pavia, Italy. Her research interests include of the flexural top displacement, it is typically advisable to
large-scale structural tests, the seismic behavior of nonrectangular reinforced
concrete (RC) walls and unreinforced masonry structures, and the torsional response
determine the displacement due to the fixed-end rotation
of asymmetric buildings when subjected to seismic excitation. independently of the displacement due to the flexural
deformation of the wall f . The base length of the lowest
ACI member Alessandro Dazio is Deputy-Director of the Rose School and member of the LVDT chain should therefore be so short that
Coordinator of the Reinforced Concrete research section of the EUCENTRE
Foundation in Pavia, Italy. His research interests include the seismic design and the instrument only extends over the base crack between the
assessment of RC and masonry structures through large-scale structural testing, wall and foundation and does not cross any other large cracks.
numerical simulation, and analytical models.
For determining the shear deformations, diagonal measure-
M. J. Nigel Priestley, FACI, is a Professor Emeritus at the University of California at ments are taken (Fig. 2(a)). To cover approximately the height of
San Diego, San Diego, CA, and Co-Director Emeritus of the Rose School. He received one inclined flexure-shear crack, values in the order of the wall
the ACI Raymond C. Reese Structural Research Award in 1984 and 1989, the ACI
Wason Award for Most Meritorious Paper in 1997, and the ACI Arthur R. Anderson length are often chosen for the height of the shear panel, but
Award in 1997. His research interests include the seismic design, assessment, and retrofit smaller heights have also been used in the past.8,9 When the
of RC bridges and buildings; seismic design philosophy for precast concrete structures; lowest points of the diagonal measurements are fixed to the wall
and development of realistic dynamic testing methods to simulate inelastic response
under seismic loading. rather than the foundation, the measured shear deformation does
not include any sliding movement sl along the construction joint
between the foundation and the wall; in this case, the sliding
are therefore not discussed any further. The following two movement has to be separately measured using additional
sections outline the instrumentation layouts and evaluation LVDTs7 (Fig. 2).
techniques for determining the shear and flexural displacement
components from the wall tests. Computation of displacement components from
experimental measurements
Typical instrumentation layouts for determining Due to the presence of cracking, plane sections not
displacement components remaining plane, and the existence of a moment gradient
Possible layouts for determining the different displacement across the element,8 as well as the fact that the subdivision
components are discussed, using the instrumentation of the of deformations of inelastic RC wall members into shear and
U-shaped walls that were tested by the authors under quasi- flexural deformations isto some extentartificial, the
static cyclic loading7 as an example. The main objective of displacement components determined from experimental
these tests was to compare the behavior of the U-shaped measurements are only approximate values. Although they
walls for different directions of loading. Because the results are not exact, however, they provide a useful link between
of these tests are also used in the following sections, a brief the experiments and numerical models, particularly if beam
description of the test setup and the loading history is given models are used. Average curvatures can be derived from the
herein; for further details, refer to Beyer et al.7 The cross chains of LVDTs along the edges of the walls, and the
sections, aspect ratios, and axial load ratios of the two test flexural deformations f can be computed by integrating the
units TUA and TUB are given in Table 1. By means of three curvatures twice. The total flexural displacement f is
actuators (Fig. 1(a)), the walls were subjected to a complex computed as the sum of f plus the wall displacement due to
bidirectional loading history (Fig. 1(b)) in which five the fixed-end rotation , which is associated with strain
different directions of loading were distinguished and penetration into the foundation. Unlike for the experimental
labeled with different letters: 1) parallel to the web flexural deformations, which are mostly determined by the
(Positions A and B); 2) parallel to the flanges so that the method described previously, and where differences
flange ends are in compression (Position C); 3) parallel to the between test series on RC walls chiefly originate from
flanges so that the web is in compression (Position D); 4) in different base lengths of the LVDT measurements rather
a diagonal direction so that one flange end is in compression than the evaluation method, the evaluation of shear
(Positions E and H); and 5) in a diagonal direction so that one deformation is less homogenous between different research
corner is in compression (Positions F and G). At each groups. For many test series, the shear displacements of a
ductility level, the wall was first subjected to a cycle parallel shear panel have been evaluated using one of the following
to the web, a cycle parallel to the flanges, a cycle in a two equations
diagonal direction, and a sweep.
The instrumentation of the U-shaped walls was such that 1 2 2
s = ------ ( ( d + 2 ) ( d + 1 ) ) (1a)
the displacement components of the web and the two flanges 4b
could be separately determined. Figure 2 shows the continuous
chains of linear variable differential transformers (LVDT)
d
measurements, which were taken along the four outer edges s = ------ ( 2 1 ) (1b)
of the U-shaped wall. Such LVDT chains are used in most 2b
wall tests for determining average curvatures along the wall
height; for walls tested under unidirectional loading, two where b is the width of the shear panel, d is the original
chains instead of four are sufficient. When designing the length of the diagonal, and i is the change in length of one
instrumentation for a test unit, the researcher typically of the two diagonals. Equation (1(b)) corresponds to the zero
strives for as many detailed measurements as possible, while and first order terms of the Taylor series of Eq. (1(a)).
at the same time limiting the number of instruments needed. Hiraishi10 showed that these approaches are only correct if
For this reason, it is common to choose LVDTs with smaller the curvature is constant over the height of the panel for
base lengths for regions where inelastic deformations are which the shear displacements are determined and, therefore,
expected to cause large curvature gradients and LVDTs with any difference in the lengths of the diagonals is associated

168 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

Table 1Cross sections of isolated cantilever walls tested under quasi-static cyclic loading that were
included in this study (all dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

with shear deformations only. If the curvature is not constant where (hsh) is the difference of rotations at the top and bottom of
over the height of the shear panelas is the case for cantilever the panel of height hsh for which the shear deformations are
wallspart of the difference in the lengths of the diagonals determined, and is a measure for the variation of the curvature
has to be attributed to flexural deformations. This is illustrated over the height of the panel. The values of vary between 0.5 and
in Fig. 3. Consequently, Eq. (1(a)) and (1(b)) overestimate 1 if the point of contraflexure is above the panel for which the
the actual shear deformation if the curvature is not constant shear deformations are determined
over the height of the shear panel. Hiraishi10 also showed
that a term needs to be subtracted to account for the variation h sh
of curvature over the height of the panel
( z ) dz
1 2 2
= ----------------------
0
s = ------ ( ( d + 2 ) ( d + 1 ) ) ( 0.5 ) ( h sh )h sh (2) - (3)
4b ( h sh )h sh

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 169

Fig. 1Quasi-static cyclic tests on U-shaped walls7: (a)
test setup; and (b) loading history with cardinal points.

Fig. 4Distribution of shear and axial strains for U-shaped

wall TUA7 at = 3.0 for Position A: (a) shear strains
obtained from Demec measurements (thin lines illustrate
Demec measurement grid, whereas thick lines represent
shear strains and grey shaded areas represent axial strains);
Fig. 2Instrumentation of U-shaped walls7: (a) instrumentation and (b) comparison of shear strains obtained from Demec
suitable for determining different displacement components f, measurements to shear panel measurements (dashed line
, and s (photo); and (b) sketch of instrumentation of one represents shear strain corresponding to shear stiffness GcAw).
flange. (Note: all dimensions are in mm; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
lengths that vary over the wall height (Fig. 2). The base
lengths are chosen to yield good estimates of the flexural
deformations f, which yields generally sufficient accurate
values of because is a direct measure of f . For slender
walls, the wall is typically divided into several shear panels
over its height (Fig. 2). The shear deformations of each panel
are computed from a pair of diagonal measurements. The
shear deformation of the wall over its entire height is the sum
of the shear deformations of all panels.
Fig. 3Variation of length of shear panel diagonals: (a) for EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF SHEAR
shear; (b) for flexural deformations with constant curvature DEFORMATIONS
over height; and (c) with variable curvature over height. Distribution of shear strains within RC wall
Although the shear force in a cantilever wall subjected to
For a constant curvature, is 0.5 and Eq. (2) yields the a point load at the top is constant over the height, the shear
original Eq. (1(a)) and (1(b)). If the curvature distribution is strains are far from being evenly distributed over the height
triangular, equates to 2/3; and if the deformations are and section once the wall has cracked and the longitudinal
concentrated near the base, tends toward unity. Provided reinforcement yields. This is illustrated by the results
that the base lengths of the LVDTs measuring the elongations obtained from the Demec measurements (Whitmore gauge
of the wall edges are shorter than the height of the shear measurements) taken during the U-shaped wall tests, which
panel, the value of can be computed from these LVDT allow the visualization of the strain distribution over the wall
measurements. Massone and Wallace19 studied a hypothetical face. At each Demec measurement point, the strain state is
case and judged that four to six LVDTs with equal base determined from its relative movement to its surrounding
lengths over the height of one shear panel would be sufficient measurement points. Demec measurements were taken on
to yield good estimates of . The authors use LVDT base the inside faces of the wall, whereas the outer faces were

170 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

used for LVDT chains and shear-panel measurements, as
described in the previous section. For example, the shear and
axial strain distribution of the U-shaped wall TUA at a
displacement ductility = 3.0 when the wall is orthogonally
loaded to its symmetry axis (Position A) is plotted in Fig. 4(a).
The figure shows that the shear strains are concentrated in
the plastic zone, particularly in areas where large tensile
longitudinal steel strains were encountered. Hence, the
results suggest that the magnitude of the shear strains is
directly linked to the magnitude of the tensile strains in the
vertical reinforcing bars. The link has also been observed,
for example, by Vallenas et al.,20 Oesterle et al.,21 and
Thomson and Wallace.14 Figure 4(b) shows a comparison of
the shear strains obtained from Demec measurements to the
shear strains obtained from the shear-panel instrumentation.
For the comparison, the Demec measurements of each wall Fig. 5Shear displacement-shear force hysteresis for U-
section (that is, the two flanges and the web) were averaged shaped wall TUA7 for cycles parallel to web and restrained
at the heights of the Demec measurement points. The resolution wall head rotation. Plot includes shear displacements
of the Demec measurements is, of course, significantly according to Eq. (1a) and (2).
higher over the height than the distribution of the shear
strains obtained by the shear-panel measurements; however, force-deformation hysteresis.25 To give an idea of the
the figure shows a good agreement between the two methods difference between the two methods of evaluating the shear
of determining the shear deformations. Also included in Fig. 4 displacements that were discussed in the previous section,
is a vertical dashed line, which corresponds to the shear results for both methodsEq. (1(a)) and (2))are included
strains obtained for a shear stiffness value of 0.4EcAw, which in Fig. 5. For the results presented herein, the difference in
is recommended by FEMA 35622 for the elastic analysis of peak shear displacements is between 5 and 12%. Massone and
RC walls. In this equation, Aw is the wall area between the Wallace,19 however, reported differences as large as 31% for
extreme compression fiber and the center of the tension the two methods of evaluating the shear deformations. The
reinforcement, which shall be typically assumed as obtained difference depends on the curvature profile over the
0.8bwlw,23 where bw and lw are the width and length of the height of the shear panel, the magnitude of the factor, and
wall, respectively. Assuming that the shear modulus Gc of the ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations of the shear panel.
concrete can be estimated as 40% of the elastic modulus Ec,
the suggested shear stiffness corresponds to Gc Aw, which is Variation of s /f ratio with ductility demand
for Aw = 0.8Ag only approximately 7% smaller than the shear The shear strain distribution (Fig. 4) and the hysteresis
stiffness of an elastic homogenous uncracked member. The curve (Fig. 5) suggest that the magnitude of the shear
effective shear area of an elastic homogenous uncracked deformations does not only depend on the shear force but also
member with a slender section is Aw = (5 + 5)/(6 + 5)Ag24 depends on the inelastic flexural deformations. Experimental
and equates to Aw = 0.86Ag for = 0.2, which is a typical evidence for the continuous growth of the shear deformations
Poissons ratio of concrete. The comparison with the shear with top displacements when the wall is loaded in the inelastic
deformations derived from measurements underlines that range was presented in the 1970s by Wang et al.,26 Vallenas et
computing the shear deformation based on elastic properties al.,20 and Oesterle et al.8,9 Vallenas et al.,20 for example,
significantly underestimates the shear deformations of observed that yielding of the shear and flexural mechanism
members with shear cracking.19 simultaneously occurs, and that even if the shear stresses were
constant over the height of the wall, shear yielding is only
Shear force-shear displacement hysteresis observed in regions where the flexural mechanism yields.
In many analyses of RC structural walls controlled by Vallenas et al.20 also stated that for the monotonic loading, the
flexure, it is assumed that the shear stiffness of the wall shear deformations were almost a constant factor of the
remains approximately constant after the shear crack pattern flexural deformations, whereas for specimens subjected to
has fully developed and the wall is loaded in the inelastic cyclic loading, the ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations
range. Because the shear force carried by a wall only marginally increases with the number of load reversals and intensity of
increases once the nominal yield force has been reached, this the deformation. Vallenas et al.s20 findings are revisited in
modeling approach predicts that for displacements beyond the following section using the results from different series of
the yield displacement, the shear displacement remains quasi-static cyclic wall tests as evidence.
approximately constant, whereas the flexural displacement The considered test series are the following: 1) Phases I and II
increases. Experimental results show that this is not the case. of the PCA tests conducted by Oesterle et al.8,9; 2) the tests
Although the behavior of the wall is dominated by flexure, conducted by Dazio et al.11 on rectangular walls; 3) the tests on
the shear displacement-shear force hysteresis in Fig. 5 is walls with highly confined boundary elements conducted by
highly nonlinear and the shear deformations increase with Hines et al.12,13; and 4) the aforementioned tests on U-shaped
increasing top displacement. The hysteresis also shows that walls conducted by Beyer et al.7 The cross sections, aspect ratios,
the shear displacement varies the most when the lateral load and axial load ratios of these walls are given in Table 1. For the
is close to 0: at this point, the cracks are open along their walls tested by Dazio et al.11 and Beyer et al.,7 the experimental
entire length and therefore the resistance against relative measurements were available in electronic format and the shear
movements of the crack interfaces is small. As a result, the deformations were evaluated according to the method
shear stiffness is very low and leads to the pinching of the developed by Hiraishi10 (Eq. (2)). For the tests conducted

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 171

Fig. 6Variation of s/f ratios with top drift for cantilever RC walls tested under quasi-static cyclic loading.

by Oesterle et al.8,9 and Hines et al.,12,13 the data were only points were available), the s/f ratio tended to increase with
available in the form of plots presented in the test reports, displacement demand for top 1%that is, with increasing
where the shear deformations had been evaluated top displacement, the shear deformations contributed an
according to Eq. (1(b)); this, of course, impairs the quality increasing proportion of the total displacement. Differences
of the available results. The shear displacements reported between the two groups of specimens exist not only regarding
in these test reports, however, are considered of sufficient the variation of the s/f ratio with ductility demand, but can
accuracy for the following discussion. also be found in their failure mechanisms: The first group
Unlike Vallenas et al.,20 Dazio11 found that the ratio of shear- Specimens R1 and B1failed in flexure and the shear transfer
to-flexural displacements of the six capacity-designed RC walls mechanism as such did not significantly deteriorate in both
with rectangular sections that were tested under quasi-static specimens. In the second group, the picture is less homogenous;
cyclic loading11 remained approximately constant for the peak but in all specimens, the shear-transfer mechanism significantly
displacements of all cycles in the inelastic range; this is shown degraded before failure occurred. Specimens B2, B3, and B5
in Fig. 6(c). The ratios of shear-to-flexural displacements for the experienced abrasive rubbing of concrete and spalling of the
six walls vary between approximately 0.05 and 0.13. The walls concrete along inclined cracks through the web, which was
tested by Dazio et al.11 were all capacity-designed; therefore, most likely assisted by the absence of an axial force in the wall.
their behavior was always controlled by flexure. To illustrate As a result, the cracks were not properly closed upon load
the difference for walls with shear-controlled behavior, the reversal and facilitated a deterioration of the crack interfaces.
walls of Phase I of the PCA test series are discussed in the From the onset of the deterioration of the web concrete, the
following. In this test series, Oesterle et al.8 tested seven walls contribution of the shear deformations to the overall
with different cross sections under unidirectional cyclic loading. deformations significantly increased. Specimens B2 and B5
No axial load was applied during these tests. Figure 6(a) shows finally failed due to web crushing, whereas Specimen B3 failed
the ratio of shear-to-flexural displacements as a function of the due to fracture of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. Shortly
top drift. The s/f ratios in Fig. 6(a) are plotted for inelastic before the bar fracture, however, the boundary element had
cycles onlysmall amplitude cycles at the beginning of the test sheared through. Specimen R2 was subjected to concrete
and cycles at the end of the test when either bar fracture or web crushing and also experienced large out-of-plane deformations
crushing had occurred and the capacity of the wall had due to instabilities of the wall under cyclic loading, which might
significantly decreased are omitted. In the following, the have contributed to the deterioration of the compression struts
variation of the s/f ratios for top displacements corresponding and other parts of the shear-transfer mechanism.
to a drift ratio of top 1% is discussed. For these walls, a drift Unlike the walls in the first phase, the walls that were
ratio of top 1% corresponds to a displacement ductility tested in the second phase of the PCA tests were subjected to
between = 1.6 and 3.6, according to the yield displacements a constant axial load and all walls failed due to the sudden
determined by Oesterle et al.8; hence, for top 1%, all walls are crushing of the compression struts.9 The variation of s/f
undergoing inelastic deformations. Figure 6(a) shows that for ratios with drift demand for these walls is shown in Fig. 6(b).
Walls R1 and B1, the s/f ratio is approximately constant over Up to failure, the shear-transfer mechanism was not significantly
the entire ductility range. For the other four walls (Walls R2, degrading, and the ratio of shear-to-flexural displacements
B2, B3, and B5; Wall F1 is excluded because only two data remained relatively constant (note that the cycles in which

172 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

the compression strut failure occurred are not included in
Fig. 6(b) because for these cycles, the displacement components
were not evaluated in the test report9). The same failure
mechanism was observed for Test Units 3A, 3B, and 3C by
Hines et al.12,13 (Fig. 6(d)). The remaining test units in the
study conducted by Hines et al.12,13except for Unit 2B
failed due to buckling and fracture of the flexural reinforce-
ment. The behavior of these test units was therefore flexure-
controlled, and the s/f ratios of these walls were also
approximately independent from the displacement demand.
Test Unit 2B failed due to yielding of the shear reinforcement.
As a result, the s/f ratios were very large (varying between
1.15 and 2.3 for drifts larger than 1%), and the corresponding
results could not be plotted in Fig. 6(d). The behavior of the
two U-shaped walls TUA and TUB (Fig. 6(e) and 6(f)) was
also flexure-controlled and again the s/f ratios did not Fig. 7(a) Truss analogy model for RC element with parallel
increase with ductility demand. Due to the bidirectional compression struts; (b) Mohrs circle, representing strain
loading of these walls, however, the demand on the web and state at center line of wall; and (c) strain profile showing m
and . Plots (a) and (b) are taken from Rabbat and Collins.28
flanges varied considerably and led to a large variation of
s/f ratios for the different loading directions; this will be
discussed in more detail in the following section. diagonal to the shear strain. Thus, if the behavior of the wall is
Although the shear-to-flexural displacement ratios vary controlled by shear, and if plastic strains are accumulating in
considerably between the walls, for all the walls whose shear the shear reinforcement or the compression struts are
capacity did not significantly degrade, the shear-to-flexural softening considerably, the shear strains disproportionately
displacement ratios remained approximately constant. For increase to the flexural strains. Consequently, the s/f ratio
walls in which the shear-transfer mechanism was signifi- increases with the top displacement demand. This was
cantly degrading, the s/f ratio increases as the top displace- observed for some of the PCA test units of Phase I and Test
ment increases. One comes to the same conclusion if the stress Unit 2B tested by Hines et al.12,13
state due to axial load, shear force, and moment of a cracked
RC panel with parallel compression struts is considered. Variation of s /f ratio for U-shaped walls under
Figure 7(b) shows the Mohrs circle, representing the average bidirectional loading
strain state of the wall panel in Fig. 7(a). The variable d The previous section showed that for walls controlled by
refers to the axial strain in the compression strut (hence, d < flexure under unidirectional cyclic loading, the ratio of
0), m refers to the mean axial strain, h refers to the hori- shear-to-flexural displacements remains approximately
zontal strain, refers to the shear strain, and refers to the independent of the top displacement demand. This also holds
cracking angle measured against the element axis. Using the approximately true for nonrectangular walls controlled by
geometric relationships within Mohrs circle, the shear strain flexure if a specific loading direction is considered (Fig. 6(e)
can be expressed as follows. and 6(f)). For different directions of loading, however, the
s/f ratios can vary significantly. This was shown by
m 2 d Thomson and Wallace14 for a T-shaped wall loaded along its
= ----------
- + h tan -------------
- (4) symmetry axis and it is illustrated herein by means of the
tan sin 2 U-shaped wall TUA tested under bidirectional loading.7
Figure 8(a) shows the s/f ratios of the web and flanges for
The same equation is quoted in Oesterle et al.,21 but it the five different directions of loading that were applied
originates from Rabbat and Collins,28 where it was given in (Fig. 1). These ratios were computed as the average ratios of
a slightly different form. Although Eq. (4) only applies the approximately constant branches between 0.6% and
strictly speakingto a section of the wall that is small the ultimate drift (Fig. 6(e)). Figure 8(b) shows the forces in
enough that the strain state is approximately homogenous, it the flanges and the web at peak displacements for the
can be used for visualizing the three different contributions different directions of loading. Note that the rotation of the
to the shear strain . The first term represents the contribution wall head about the vertical axis was restrained throughout
of the mean axial strain m. In structural walls subjected to the loading history (exceptions are outlined in Beyer et al.7);
seismic loading, the axial strains are chiefly caused by flexural as a result, the flange forces are non-zero when the wall is
deformations. Given that the depth c of the compression loaded parallel to the web and unequally distributed when
zone remains approximately constant once the section has the wall is loaded in the diagonal direction.
yielded, m is directly related to the curvature , which Although the shear forces carried by the different wall
determines the flexural deformations. Therefore, the first sections (web and flanges) certainly influence the s/f
term of Eq. (4) shows that the shear strains are directly ratios, they are not the only parameter. Figure 8(a) also
related to the flexural strains. Hence, if the second and third shows that the s/f ratios tend to be larger if the wall section
terms are small, the shear displacements are proportional to is under net axial tension. This applies, for example, to the
the flexural displacementsthis was, for example, the case web section (s/f = 0.30) when the wall is loaded to
for Dazio et al.s11 capacity-designed walls. The second Position E or to the flange opposite the corner that is in
term represents the contribution of the horizontal strains in compression (s/f = 0.53) when the wall is loaded to
the shear reinforcement to the shear strain and the third term Position F. Out of the s/f ratios shown in Fig. 8(a), the
represents the contribution of the strain in the compression negative ratio of the East flange (s/f = 0.09) at Position E

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 173

 displacements, which are based on the observation that the
ratio of shear-to-flexural displacement is approximately
independent of the imposed ductility demand. The first is by
Hines et al.29 and the second is by Priestley et al.,30 which is
based on the work by Miranda et al.31 Neither of the two
accounts for the effect of the mean axial strain on the shear
deformations. To complement their work, a new empirical
equation is proposed for walls whose behavior is dominated
by flexure. It is based on the assumption that the ratio of shear-
to-flexural deformations in a wall whose shear-transfer
mechanism is not significantly degrading depends on the
geometry of the wall, the axial strain level within the wall,
and the cracking angle. The proposed model is based on Eq.
(4) in conjunction with the plastic hinge model (Fig. 9(c)).
Over the height of the plastic hinge length Lph, the curvature
and the mean axial strain m are assumed as constant.
Therefore, for a given cracking angle, the shear strain over
Lph is also approximately constant (Eq. (4)). If it is further
assumed that the contributions of the second and third term
of Eq. (4) can be neglected and that the shear deformations
outside the plastic hinge length are negligible, then the shear
deformations can be estimated as

m
s L ph ----------
- L ph (5)
tan

Fig. 8For U-shaped wall TUA7: (a) average s/f ratios; where is a cracking angle representative of the fanned
and (b) actuator forces loading web and flanges at = 4.0. crack pattern (Fig. 9(a)). The flexural deformations, on the
(Note: actuator forces are in kN; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.) other hand, are computed assuming that all inelastic flexural
deformations can be ascribed to the plastic hinge mechanism.

f H n L ph H n (6)

The ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations can therefore

be written as

s m 1
----- ------------------
- ------ (7)
f tan H n

where the quantities m and are the axial strain at the center
of the wall sections and the curvature, respectively, and are
derived from the moment-curvature analysis. In this study,
Fig. 9Plastic hinge method: (a) crack pattern; (b) true m and were evaluated for the walls described in Table 1
curvature profile; and (c) plastic curvature profile assumed for a maximum steel strain of 1.5%. The ratio m-, however,
in plastic hinge method. remains typically quite stable along the inelastic branch of
the moment-curvature relationship. For the U-shaped walls,
is most peculiar. When loading in the diagonal direction to moment-curvature analyses were carried out in the five
Position E, the force in the East flange did not reach its peak different directions of loading that were applied during
at the maximum displacement but dropped from the force at testing. For each direction of loading, the m- ratios
zero displacementwhich was required to restrain the rotation corresponding to the three wall sections of the U-shaped
of the wall headto the final value at Position E. This drop wall (web and two flanges) were determined by extracting
in force probably led to a reversal of the shear displacements the axial strain at the center of the wall section and dividing
in the East flange. Note that the same observation was made it by the curvature component associated with the in-plane
for the second U-shaped wall (TUB) tested by Beyer et al.7 bending moment of this wall. For a given ratio m- (that is,
and also for the U-shaped walls tested by Pgon et al.15-18 for a given ratio of the compression zone c to the wall length
lw; refer to Fig. 7(c)), Eq. (7) yields that s/f is proportional
EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING RATIO OF to lw/Hn. Equation (7) is therefore mainly a geometric
SHEAR-TO-FLEXURAL DEFORMATIONS FOR relationship. It also accounts, however, for the fact that for
WALLS CONTROLLED BY FLEXURE the same wall subjected to different loading conditions, the
To the authors knowledge, there are only two equations at m- ratio might be different, as it was observed for U-shaped
present for estimating the ratio of shear-to-flexural walls under bidirectional loading.

174 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

 Because Eq. (7) is the result of a very simple concept
regarding the shear deformations in conjunction with the
plastic hinge model, it cannot capture the exact real behavior
but only the main parameters that influence s/f. In particular,
the following approximations are expected to affect the
accuracy of Eq. (7):
The plastic hinge length is calibrated to provide the best
estimate of the top displacement f for a given curvature .
The area underneath the curvature profile associated with
the plastic hinge mechanism (Fig. 9(c)) is typically smaller
than the area underneath the true curvature profile
(Fig. 9(b)). Based on the observation that curvature
and axial strain are directly proportional, the shear
deformations are proportional to the area underneath
the curvature profile. Hence, by approximating the
structure with the plastic hinge mechanism in Fig. 9(c), Fig. 10Comparison of predicted s/f ratios to ones
the shear deformations are underestimated. determined from experimental measurements.
Neglecting the second and third terms of Eq. (4), which
represent the shear deformations due to strain in the Wallace,14 the flexural deformations were computed as f =
horizontal reinforcement and strain in the compression s because the variation of curvature over the height of
strut, also underestimates the shear deformations. the wall was not measured. The shear deformations were
On the other hand, Eq. (7) will overestimate the s/f computed by Thomson and Wallace14 according to the
ratios because Eq. (6) is likely to underestimate the method developed by Hiraishi,10 assuming a value of 2/3 for .
flexural deformations for a given curvature due to the Figure 10 shows the comparison of the s/f ratios
fact that the elastic flexural displacement is also estimated predicted with Eq. (8) and the experimentally determined
on the basis of the plastic hinge model. Because Lph is ratios. These predictions were obtained using the cracking
smaller than Hn/3 for slender walls, the curvature profile angles observed during the experiments. For design
associated with elastic deformations leads to a larger purposes, the cracking angle needs to be estimated. As an
top displacement f for the same base curvature than approximate estimate, a cracking angle of 45 degrees can be
the plastic hinge mechanism. assumed. A better estimate is obtained with the following
Equation (7) is written as a function of a cracking angle equation by Collins and Mitchell32
, which is representative of the plastic zone where the
crack pattern is like a fan and the cracking angles vary
A sw f yw
= tan ----- f 1 b w + ---------------
between 90 degrees and (Fig. 9(a)). It is desirable to 1 jd
< 90 (9)
express Eq. (7) as a function of the cracking angle , V s
which is the cracking angle outside the fan where
cracks are approximately parallel. Hence, a correction where jd is the lever arm between the compression and
factor should also account for the fact that the quotient tensile resultant; V is the shear force; f1 is the tensile strength
1/tan is smaller than 1/tan . orthogonal to the crack, which can be estimated as a function
These approximations increase the scatter of the of the cracking stress and the strain orthogonal to the
predicted-to-experimental s/f ratios but also bias the crack32; bw is the wall thickness; and Asw, fyw, and s are the
predicted s/f ratios. From the analysis of the walls area, yield strength, and spacing of the shear reinforcement,
considered in this study, it was found that a good estimate of respectively. For most of the considered walls, the agreement
a correction factor C1 is 1.5. With C1 = 1.5, Eq. (7) can be between the predicted and experimentally determined s/f
written as a function of 1/tan as ratios in Fig. 10 is satisfactory. The exceptions are the
negative ratios of the U-shaped walls, which cannot be
s m 1 captured (refer to the previous section). It is emphasized that
----- = 1.5 --------------
- ------ (8) the variety of methods for measuring and evaluating the
f tan H n shear deformations causes an inter-test series variability of
the s/f ratios, which adds to the generally known scatter of
Equation (8) is applied to a database of walls that includes shear-related quantities. The error can be assessed by
the walls tested by Oesterle et al.,8,9 Dazio et al.,11 Hines et comparing the sum of the displacement components to the
al.,12,13 and Beyer et al.,7 which were already discussed in total measured displacements. For example, for Test Units R1
previous sections of this paper. Only those walls are included and B1 of Phase I of the PCA tests, the sum of the shear and
for which the experimentally determined s/f ratios were flexural displacements is approximately 15% larger than the
found to be approximately constant for top displacements measured total displacement. Part of the discrepancy can be
corresponding to displacement ductilities larger than attributed to evaluating the shear displacements according to
approximately 2. In addition, the U-shaped walls tested by Eq. (1(b)), which overestimates the shear displacements,
Pgon et al.15-18 and the tests on rectangular and T-shaped rather than using Eq. (2). As an alternative, the shear
walls by Thomson and Wallace14 are considered (Table 1). deformations could be evaluated as the difference between the
The data for the U-shaped wall tests by Pgon et al.15-18 were total and flexural deformationsthat is, s = f. With this
available in electronic format and the shear deformations approach, the average s/f ratios of Test Units R1 and B1
were evaluated according to the method developed by would decrease from 0.33 and 0.36 to 0.15 and 0.21,
Hiraishi10 (Eq. (2)). For the tests conducted by Thomson and respectively, which would agree significantly better with the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 175

predicted s/f ratios. This example illustrates the large deformation is larger for shorter walls. Even in very
sensitivity of the s/f ratios to the selected evaluation method. slender walls, however, the shear flexibility of walls
Despite these uncertainties, Fig. 10 shows that Eq. (8) is able to might need to be considered when assessing interstory
capture the general trend in the variation of the s/f ratios. drifts at the level where the flexural deformations
concentrate. Due to shear deformations, the interstory
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS drifts at this level will be appreciably larger than
At present, when slender RC structural walls controlled by anticipated if only flexural deformations are considered.
flexure are modeled by means of beam elements and Therefore, deformation demands on other structural and
analyzed for their seismic behavior in the inelastic range, it nonstructural elements at this level will also be larger.
is often assumed that the shear stiffness remains constant The results were summarized in a simple model for
throughout the loading process and that the shear deformations estimating the s/f ratios for walls controlled by flexure.
once the nominal strength is reacheddo not increase. The Such estimates allow the engineer to evaluate the
purpose of this paper was to show by means of experimental expected shear deformations based on the flexural
results from quasi-static tests on RC structural walls that displacement or to compute approximate shear stiffnesses
these assumptions do not hold true. Many of the observations for a given top displacement level that can be used in
are not new but have already been made as early as the 1970s conjunction with beam models. An example in which
by Wang et al.,26 Vallenas et al.,20 and Oesterle et al.,8,9,21 this method has been applied is given in Beyer et al.33
who all observed that for increasing top displacements, the The analysis of the different walls has also shown that
ratio of shear-to-flexural displacements remained either unlike for flexural displacementsdifferent evaluation
approximately constant or even grew with increasing techniques have been used for evaluating the experimental
displacement demand. Based on their findings and the shear displacements. Some of these methods have been
evaluation of other quasi-static cyclic tests, the following found erroneous10 and should not be used when computing
observations were made: the shear displacement component from structural wall tests.
For RC walls forming a flexural hinge and a stable This will also contribute to a more homogenous set of
shear-transfer mechanism, the ratio of shear-to-flexural experimental data for shear deformations and help to reduce
displacement remains approximately constant over the the inter-serial scatter between test series.
entire ductility range once the walls have reached their
nominal strength. A stable shear-transfer mechanism ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
requires that the shear reinforcement remain largely The authors would like to thank P. Pgon from the Joint Research Centre
(JRC) in Ispra, Italy, for sharing the test data and reports of the U-shaped
elastic, the concrete diagonal does not crush, and other wall tests that were carried out at the JRC. The authors would also like to
mechanismssuch as the abrasive rubbing of concrete thank J. W. Wallace from the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, for
along inclined cracksare limited. For these walls, the making the report on the tests he performed at Clarkson University available.
shear stiffness at peak displacements decreases in a
similar proportion as the flexural stiffness of the structural REFERENCES
wall. This behavior was observed for walls whose behavior 1. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., The Modified Compression-Field Theory
for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI JOURNAL,
was controlled by flexure. It seems also applicable for Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
the cycles before the onset of crushing to walls that 2. Bentz, E., Response-2000, Shell-2000, Triax-2000, Membrane-2000 User
failed due to sudden crushing of the concrete diagonal. Manual, University of Toronto, ON, Canada, 2001, 85 pp.
If the shear-transfer mechanism is significantly degrading, 3. Wong, P. S., and Vecchio, F. J., VecTor2 and Formworks Users Manual,
University of Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002, 213 pp.
the shear deformations increase in larger proportion 4. CSI, PERFORM 3Dv4Nonlinear Analysis and Performance
than the flexural deformations. For these walls, the ratio Assessment for 3D Structures, Computer and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA,
of shear-to-flexural displacements tends to increase 2006, 328 pp.
with ductility demand. In these cases, the s/f ratios 5. Bathe, K.-J., Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
are also strongly dependent on the loading history. This NJ, 1996, 1037 pp.
6. Taucer, F. F.; Spacone, E.; and Filippou, F. C., A Fiber Beam-Column
behavior was observed for walls whose behavior was Element for Seismic Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
controlled by shear. Report No. UCB/EERC-91-17, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,
The shear strain distribution over a wall is not even. CA, 1991, 139 pp.
Demec measurements showed that shear strains concentrate 7. Beyer, K.; Dazio, A.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests of
Two U-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Walls, Journal of Earthquake
in regions where the axial strains are largethat is, in Engineering, V. 12, No. 7, 2008, pp. 1023-1053.
regions where the wall undergoes inelastic deformations. 8. Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; Johal, L. S.; Carpenter, J. E.; Russell, H. G.;
This was also confirmed by the experimental results of and Corley, W. G., Earthquake Resistant Structural WallsTests of Isolated
U-shaped walls, which showed that the s/f ratios Walls, Report to National Science Foundation, PCA Construction Technology
were particularly large for those wall sections and loading Laboratories, Skokie, IL, 1976, 317 pp.
9. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Fiorato, A. E.; Russell, H. G.;
directions that led to large tensile strains in the considered and Corley, W. G., Earthquake Resistant Structural WallsTests of Isolated
wall section. WallsPhase II, Report to National Science Foundation, PCA Construction
For nearly half of the considered cantilever walls (the Technology Laboratories, Skokie, IL, 1979, 332 pp.
different loading directions and wall sections of the U- 10. Hiraishi, H., Evaluation of Shear and Flexural Deformations of Flexural
Type Shear Walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
shaped walls were separately counted), the shear Engineering, V. 17, No. 2, 1984, pp. 135-144.
deformations constituted more than 20% of the flexural 11. Dazio, A.; Wenk, T.; and Bachmann, H., Versuche an
deformations when the walls responded in the inelastic Stahlbetontragwnden unter Zyklisch-Statischer Einwirkung (Quasi-Static
range. Hence, the shear deformations of RC wallseven Cyclic Tests on RC Structural Walls), Report No. 239, ETH, Zurich,
Switzerland, 1999, 160 pp.
if they are controlled by flexureshould be considered 12. Hines, E. M.; Seible, F.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Cyclic Tests of Structural
when analyzing the seismic behavior of such walls. The Walls with Highly-Confined Boundary Elements, Report No. SSRP-99/15,
contribution of the shear deformations to the total University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, Aug. 1999, 266 pp.

176 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

 13. Hines, E. M.; Dazio, A.; and Seible, F., Seismic Performance of Hollow 23. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Boundary Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Elements Phase III: Web Crushing Tests, Report No. SSRP-2001/27, University Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, June 2002, 239 pp. 24. Timoshenko, S. P., Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1934.
14. Thomson IV, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., Displacement-Based Design of
25. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley &
RC Structural Walls: An Experimental Investigation of Walls with
Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross Sections, Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Sons, Inc., New York, 1975, 800 pp.
Clarkson University, New York, 1995, 373 pp. 26. Wang, T. Y.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., Hysteretic Behaviour of
15. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Colombo, A.; Reinforced Concrete Framed Walls, Report No. UBC/EERC-75/23, University
Tognoli, P.; Hubert, O.; and Tirelli, D., U-Shaped Walls: Description of the of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1975, 367 pp.
Experimental Set-Up, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Special Publication No. 27. Dazio, A., Entwurf und Bemessung von Tragwandgebuden unter
I.00.141, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 40 pp. Erdbebeneinwirkung (Seismic Design of Buildings with Structural Walls), PhD
16. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Tognoli, P.; and thesis No. 13739, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, 2000, 229 pp.
Hubert, O., U-Shaped Walls: Quasi-Static Test in the X and Y DirectionsTest 28. Rabbat, B. G., and Collins, M. P., A Variable Angle Space Truss Model
Report, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 25 pp.
for Structural Concrete Members Subjected to Complex Loading, Proceedings
17. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Tognoli, P.; and
of the Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete
Hubert, O., U-Shaped Walls: Quasi-Static Test in the Y DirectionTest
Structures, SP-55, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Report, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 19 pp.
18. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Tognoli, P.; and 1978, pp. 547-587.
Hubert, O., U-Shaped Walls: Quasi-Static Test in the X DirectionTest 29. Hines, E. M.; Restrepo, J. I.; and Seible, F., Force-Displacement
Report, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 25 pp. Characterization of Well-Confined Bridge Piers, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101,
19. Massone, L. M., and Wallace, J. W., Load-Deformation Response of No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp. 537-548.
Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.- 30. Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., Displacement-
Feb. 2004, pp. 103-113. Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 2007, 721 pp.
20. Vallenas, J. M.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., Hysteretic Behaviour 31. Miranda, P. A.; Calvi, G. M.; Pinho, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N.,
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Report No. UBC/EERC-79/20, Displacement-Based Assessment of RC Columns with Limited Shear
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1979, 234 pp. Resistance, Report ROSE-2005/04, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 176 pp.
21. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Shiu, K. N.; and Corley, W. G.,
Web Crushing of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, ACI JOURNAL, 32. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures,
Proceedings V. 81, No. 3, May-June 1984, pp. 231-241. Response Publications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1997, 766 pp.
22. FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic 33. Beyer, K.; Dazio, A.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Inelastic Wide-Column
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Models for U-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Walls, Journal of Earthquake
Washington, DC, 2000, 518 pp. Engineering, V. 12, No. SP1, 2008, pp. 1-33.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 177